Association between treatment setting and outcomes among oregon medicaid patients with opioid use disorder: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Residential treatment is a common approach for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), however, few studies have directly compared it to outpatient treatment. The objective of this study was to compare OUD outcomes among individuals receiving residential and outpatient treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study used linked data from a state Medicaid program, vital statistics, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Treatment Episodes Dataset (TEDS) to compare OUD-related health outcomes among individuals treated in a residential or outpatient setting between 2014 and 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models examined the association between treatment setting and outcomes (i.e., opioid overdose, non-overdose opioid-related and all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and treatment retention) controlling for patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and use of medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD). Interaction models evaluated how MOUD use modified associations between treatment setting and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3293 individuals treated for OUD, 957 (29%) received treatment in a residential facility. MOUD use was higher among those treated as an outpatient (43%) compared to residential (19%). The risk of opioid overdose (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 0.73-2.64) or an opioid-related emergency department encounter or admission (aHR 1.02; 95% CI 0.80-1.29) did not differ between treatment settings. Independent of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in overdose risk (aHR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.89). Residential care was associated with greater odds of retention at 6-months (aOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32-2.21) but not 1-year. Residential treatment was only associated with improved retention for individuals not receiving MOUD (6-month aOR 2.05; 95% CI 1.56-2.71) with no benefit observed in those who received MOUD (aOR 0.75; 95% CI 0.46-1.29; interaction p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to outpatient treatment, residential treatment was not associated with reductions in opioid overdose or opioid-related ED encounters/hospitalizations. Regardless of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in opioid overdose risk.

Evaluation of a Medicaid performance improvement project to reduce high-dose opioid prescriptions.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, Oregon's Medicaid program implemented a performance improvement project to reduce high-dose opioid prescribing across its 16 coordinated care organizations (CCOs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of that program on prescription opioid use and outcomes. METHODS: Using Medicaid claims data from 2014 to 2017, we conducted interrupted time-series analyses to examine changes in the prescription opioid use and overdose rates before (July 2014 to June 2015) and after (January 2016 to December 2017) implementation of Oregon's high-dose policy initiative (July 2015 to December 2015). Prescribing outcomes were: 1) total opioid prescriptions 2) high-dose [> 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day] opioid prescriptions, and 3) proportion of opioid prescriptions that were high-dose. Opioid overdose outcomes included emergency department visits or hospitalizations that involved an opioid-related poisoning (total, heroin-involved, non-heroin involved). Analyses were performed at the state and CCO level. RESULTS: There was an immediate reduction in high dose opioid prescriptions after the program was implemented (- 1.55 prescription per 1000 enrollee; 95% CI - 2.26 to - 0.84; p < 0.01). Program implementation was also associated with an immediate drop (- 1.29 percentage points; 95% CI - 1.94 to - 0.64 percentage points; p < 0.01) and trend reduction (- 0.23 percentage point per month; 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.14 percentage points; p < 0.01) in the monthly proportion of high-dose opioid prescriptions. The trend in total, heroin-involved, and non-heroin overdose rates increased significantly following implementation of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Although Oregon's high-dose opioid performance improvement project was associated with declines in high-dose opioid prescriptions, rates of opioid overdose did not decrease. Policy efforts to reduce opioid prescribing risks may not be sufficient to address the growing opioid crisis.

Effect of relaxing hepatitis C treatment restrictions on direct-acting antiviral use in a Medicaid program: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although direct-acting antivirals (DAA) have revolutionized the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), many state Medicaid programs have limited coverage because of their expense. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) notified states about the legality of Medicaid coverage limitations, particularly within managed care programs. OBJECTIVES: To (1) examine how relaxation and alignment of hepatitis C policies within the Oregon Medicaid program affected DAA utilization and (2) describe changes in DAA coverage policies and patient characteristics of treated individuals over time. METHODS: We manually collected DAA Medicaid drug policies in the state of Oregon before and after the CMS notification was released. After categorizing DAA policies into 2 groups based on baseline prior authorization criteria (restrictive and permissive), we evaluated how changes in these DAA policies affected utilization over 3 time periods (pre-CMS period, post-CMS period, and fibrosis policy alignment). Immediate and gradual changes in trend were assessed using an interrupted time series regression model. Finally, we examined patient characteristics and liver disease complications over time as policy restrictions were removed and aligned with one another. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, Oregon's coordinated care organizations and fee-for-service drug policies relaxed liver fibrosis and substance abstinence coverage criteria leading to immediate increases in DAA use in 2016 (0.62 prescriptions per 10,000 enrollees per month; 95% CI = 0.17 to 1.08) and 2018 (1.07 prescriptions per 10,000 enrollees per month; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.51) among more restrictive coordinated care organizations at baseline. This was followed by a decrease in trend after the 2016 and 2018 impact (-0.05; 95% CI = -0.11 to -0.001 and -0.07; 95% CI = -0.13 to -0.02, respectively). Over the 3 periods, there was a decrease in treated individuals with liver-related complications (P < 0.0001) and an increase in those with a substance use diagnosis (P = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing coverage limitations resulted in treatment of patients with fewer liver-related complications and more substance use disorders. Expanding access to treatment did not result in sustained increases in utilization, and additional interventions may be necessary to meet HCV elimination goals. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in part by AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, which did not have any role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing the report, or the decision to submit the report for publication. Hartung received support for his work on this study via a grant from AbbVie Pharmaceuticals. The other authors did not receive any financial support for their contributions to this study. The authors have no other financial disclosures to report. This study was presented at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2019.

Identifying opioid dose reductions and discontinuation among patients with chronic opioid therapy.

PURPOSE: To identify and systematically categorize opioid dose reductions and discontinuations in large administrative datasets. METHODS: Using a dataset of Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries linked with prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data between 2014 and 2017, we identified patients with high-dose chronic opioid therapy (COT), ≥84 consecutive days with an average daily MME of ≥50 on each of those days. We categorized patients into four mutually exclusive groups based on the trajectory of opioid use in the year after COT: abrupt discontinuation, dose reduction and discontinuation, dose reduction without discontinuation, and stable or increasing dose. Finally, we examined prescription patterns in each category. RESULTS: Among individuals with high-dose COT, 7636 (37.1%) had an abrupt discontinuation, 2577 (12.5%) had a dose reduction and discontinuation, 7739 (37.6%) had a dose reduction without discontinuation, and 2623 (12.8%) had a stable or increasing dose in the year following the COT episode. Among those who discontinued opioid use (n = 10 213, 49.6%), three in four (74.8%) did so without evidence of tapering. Patients who discontinued opioid use were younger, had higher daily MME during COT, and were more likely to have filled a benzodiazepine or had a multiple provider or multiple pharmacy episode compared to patients who did not discontinue opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Dose reductions and discontinuations after a COT episode can be identified in large administrative datasets. Those with a discontinuation were more likely to have riskier prescription profiles during their COT episode.

Prescription Opioid Dispensing Patterns Prior to Heroin Overdose in a State Medicaid Program: a Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of individuals who use heroin report initiating opioid use with prescription opioids. However, patterns of prescription opioid use preceding heroin-related overdose have not been described. OBJECTIVE: To describe prescription opioid use in the year preceding heroin overdose. DESIGN: Case-control study comparing prescription opioid use with a heroin-involved overdose, non-heroin-involved opioid overdose, and non-overdose controls from 2015 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries with linked administrative claims, vital statistics, and prescription drug monitoring program data. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid, benzodiazepine, and other central nervous system depressant prescriptions preceding overdose; among individuals with one or more opioid prescription, we assessed morphine milligram equivalents per day, overlapping prescriptions, prescriptions from multiple prescribers, long-term use, and discontinuation of long-term use. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1458 heroin-involved overdoses (191 fatal) and 2050 non-heroin-involved opioid overdoses (266 fatal). In the 365 days prior to their overdose, 45% of individuals with a heroin-involved overdose received at least one prescribed opioid compared with 78% of individuals who experienced a non-heroin-involved opioid overdose (p < 0.001). For both heroin- and non-heroin-involved overdose cases, the likelihood of receiving an opioid increased with age. Among heroin overdose cases with an opioid dispensed, the rate of multiple pharmacy use was the only high-risk opioid pattern that was greater than non-overdose controls (adjusted odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 6.95). Discontinuation of long-term opioid use was not common prior to heroin overdose and not higher than discontinuation rates among non-overdose controls. CONCLUSIONS: Although individuals with a heroin-involved overdose were less likely to receive prescribed opioids in the year preceding their overdose relative to non-heroin opioid overdose cases, prescription opioid use was relatively common and increased with age. Discontinuation of long-term prescription opioid use was not associated with heroin-involved overdose.

Effect of generic glatiramer acetate on spending and use of drugs for multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in costs and utilization trends for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) from 2011 to 2017 in the US Medicaid program. METHODS: Using quarterly Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data from 2011 to 2017, we summarize trends in spending, utilization, and costs per prescription for 15 multiple sclerosis (MS) DMTs including brand and generic versions of glatiramer acetate. We use interrupted time series regression to estimate the effect of market entry of generic glatiramer acetate on cost per prescription of other self-administered DMTs. RESULTS: Gross annual expenditures on MS DMTs increased from $453 million to $1.32 billion between 2011 and 2017 within the Medicaid program. Increased spending was primarily driven by increases in per prescription costs, which doubled during the study period. Although total utilization was stable, product specific utilization shifted from injectable to oral DMTs. However, throughout the study, the plurality of utilization was glatiramer acetate. The introduction of generic glatiramer acetate in Q2 of 2015 was associated with an immediate increase of $441 (95% confidence interval [CI] $184-$697; p < 0.001) in the cost per prescription of branded glatiramer acetate followed by a gradual $52 per prescription reduction (95% CI -$86 to -$18) over time. There were minimal changes in the costs for the other DMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Spending on MS DMTs in the Medicaid program have more than doubled over the last 7 years primarily as a function of higher costs per prescription. Introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate product in 2015 had nominal effects on overall price trajectories and utilization within the class.

Oncology Patients Are High Cost Outliers in Total Joint Replacement Bundled Payment Systems.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began its first mandatory bundled payment program, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, which covers a 90-day episode of care. This study determined whether oncology patients enrolled in the CJR bundle incur higher hospital costs than patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients enrolled in the CJR bundled payments system from April 1, 2016 to June 31, 2018 at a single academic medical center was conducted. To determine whether tumor patients had higher total episode costs, this group was compared to patients diagnosed with OA using a 2-tailed t-test. To adjust for moderators of total hospital costs, we used generalized linear regression with a log-link, including multiple variables abstracted from chart review. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients met inclusion criteria (12 primary or metastatic tumors, 302 OA). Fifty-eight percent of tumor patients were over the target price vs 16% of OA patients. The mean tumor patient had $40,862 for total internal hospital costs compared to $16,356 in the OA group (P < .001). Length of stay was greater in the tumor group (6.75 vs 2.0 days, P < .001). A greater percentage of tumor patients were discharged to a skilled nursing facility (67% vs 27%, P = .006) with significantly higher skilled nursing facility episode costs ($18,852 vs $7731, P = .04). With adjustment for fracture status, tumor patients were 5.36 times more likely to exceed the CJR target price than OA patients (risk ratio 5.36, confidence interval 3.44-8.35, P < .001) and 50 times more likely to be outliers over the regional threshold than OA patients (risk ratio 50.33, confidence interval 16.33-155.19, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Oncology patients enrolled in the CJR bundled payment model incur significantly higher costs and have higher cost variability than patients with OA. We recommend that oncology patients be excluded from the CJR bundle.

Cost analysis of awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation: a single academic health center experience.

OBJECT The objective of this study was to compare the cost of deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed awake versus asleep at a single US academic health center and to compare costs across the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database. METHODS Inpatient and outpatient demographic and hospital financial data for patients receiving a neurostimulator lead implant (from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2014) were collected and analyzed. Inpatient charges included those associated with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure code 0293 (implantation or replacement of intracranial neurostimulator lead). Outpatient charges included all preoperative charges ≤ 30 days prior to implant and all postoperative charges ≤ 30 days after implant. The cost of care based on reported charges and a cost-to-charge ratio was estimated. The UHC database was queried (January 2011 to March 2014) with the same ICD-9 code. Procedure cost data across like hospitals (27 UHC hospitals) conducting similar DBS procedures were compared. RESULTS Two hundred eleven DBS procedures (53 awake and 158 asleep) were performed at a single US academic health center during the study period. The average patient age ( ± SD) was 65 ± 9 years old and 39% of patients were female. The most common primary diagnosis was Parkinson's disease (61.1%) followed by essential and other forms of tremor (36%). Overall average DBS procedure cost was $39,152 ± $5340. Asleep DBS cost $38,850 ± $4830, which was not significantly different than the awake DBS cost of $40,052 ± $6604. The standard deviation for asleep DBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05). In 2013, the median cost for a neurostimulator implant lead was $34,052 at UHC-affiliated hospitals that performed at least 5 procedures a year. At Oregon Health & Science University, the median cost was $17,150 and the observed single academic health center cost for a neurostimulator lead implant was less than the expected cost (ratio 0.97). CONCLUSIONS In this single academic medical center cost analysis, DBS performed asleep was associated with a lower cost variation relative to the awake procedure. Furthermore, costs compared favorably to UHC-affiliated hospitals. While asleep DBS is not yet standard practice, this center exclusively performs asleep DBS at a lower cost than comparable institutions.